243 Responses to “David Gregory Will Not Be Prosecuted”

We have a government so feckless about its debt it’s considering issuing trillion dollar marked currency to cheat its way out of the debt ceiling that the people’s representatives established as the law. The government also has refused to pass a budget despite that too being US law.

There is no law anymore for those with power, so it’s no surprise that Gregory, who got a nice exclusive White House interview after his illegal stunt, will not be prosecuted.

Of course, a respectful commoner who was caught with this magazine would face prosecution seeking to keep him in prison as long as possible, even if that commoner had not knowingly broken the law.

The law is no longer about right and wrong or even legal or illegal. It’s about who is in the powerful elite.

The journalists have covered for democrats in powerful positions, and I’m not surprised that this is a two way street.

Little by little, this country is crumbing away into something that none of us are going to like very much… unless we’re in the tiny ruling class.

Better for the prosecutor to have a little egg on his face for not pressing charges (which won’t be widely reported by the LSM) than to have a huge legal battle over the stupidity of DC gun laws (which would be front page news because it would involve a favored son.)

No, Gazzer, it isn’t. It would be best if the effing laws applied to everyone. If they don’t, the whole idea of a justice system is thrown away and people will start taking the law into their own hands.

OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law

On the other hand, no specific intent is required for this violation, and ignorance of the law or even confusion about it is no defense. We therefore did not rely in making our judgment on the feeble and unsatisfactory efforts that NBC made to determine whether or not it was lawful to possess, display and broadcast this large capacity magazine as a means of fostering the public policy debate. Although there appears to have been some misinformation provided initially, NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity-magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any federal official. While you argue that some NBC employees subjectively felt uncertain as to whether its planned actions were lawful or not, we do not believe such uncertainty was justified and we note that NBC has now acknowledged that its interpretation of the information it received was incorrect.

NBC should be made aware that OAG’s decision not to press charges in this matter was a very close decision and not one to which it came lightly or easily.

David Greogory would not hesisitate to call for anyone from Fox news to go to prison for what he did waving that clip around, in the most digusting sensionalistic oppotunism over the bodies of little dead angels, and the brave teachers that died for them, its just sad to see the overeach get just as nasty.

If any prosecutor who worked for me, really wanted to prosecute gregory and wasnt talking through the exhaustion or the wear and tear of the job but really felt that way, I would terminate immediately.

I cant be on a management team tasked with protecting the public from real crimes and waste resources on this type of nonsense, the job is too important to be worried about incredibly small people like Gregory….

We lose ourselves as a nation when we try to jail those based on their disagreements rather than the substance of their crimes

I don’t want him jailed because he disagrees with me. I want him jailed because he broke a law that has seen others jailed. I want him to face the same process, the same risk of losing his liberty, as the “little people” who have been charged under this law.

If his prosecution exposes the idiocy of the magazine ban, all the better. If a jury refuses to convict, a la nullification, all the better.

But privilege for politically correct D-grade celebrities? Immunity from a law because you’re pushing for more stringent laws? This bizarre 1st Amendment “exception” to a law that violates the 2nd Amendment?

If any prosecutor who worked for me, really wanted to prosecute gregory and wasnt talking through the exhaustion or the wear and tear of the job but really felt that way, I would terminate immediately.

Wow.

You’ve been purposefully avoiding the information on the people who have been prosecuted for this law, haven’t you?

JD
The DC guy is a hired political attorney, his statement has no affect on the situation, and carried no weight of law.

The courtroom is where it is determined whether Gregory “broke” the law.

Rob,

I don’t want him jailed because he disagrees with me. I want him jailed because he broke a law that has seen others jailed. I want him to face the same process, the same risk of losing his liberty, as the “little people” who have been charged under this law

Actually the controversy and the probably has made this law unenforceable except in the commission of a crime.

But thats my opinion, and with incarceration costs soaring, I cannot see people abiding peacefully in DC, being dragged out of their houses for poesession of a magazine unloaded and not in a rifle

Mr. Gardiner defended James Brinkley in court after the Secret Service arrested and jailed the Army veteran in September on charges that he brought “high-capacity” magazines and an unregistered gun into the District. The OAG stubbornly refused to drop the charges, despite overwhelming evidence that Mr. Brinkley followed all the laws of the District in transporting these legally owned items through the city.

Mr. Brinkley refused to accept a plea bargain that would have meant a guilty plea to a lesser charge and decided instead to take his chances before a judge. Mr. Brinkley described D.C. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Bohlen as “coming at me like I’d shot somebody” in the courtroom. Nevertheless, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Carroll Wingo acquitted Mr. Brinkley on all the firearms charges.

That is precisely why they didn’t prosecute, because it would have likely been thrown out, for arbitrary enforcement, the same way they have tried
to get at the death penalty, through the Baldus study.

36.Since this jurisdiction aggressively prosecutes people for breaking this law

Dustin, thats an unfounded statement, more of a opportunistic colorization of a group who made a decision that you disagreed with on your principles which differ greatly (and I’m with you) from the idiots who run DC

But saying that prosecutors go out of their way to unfairly prosecute or not prosecute the laws – we simple have no credible information on that

No, EPWJ. I am now angry at you, for playing your silly effing games, and then dancing about like hey you have the best of intentions so let’s forget that EPWJ just took a stealing pile of lie in the middle of the room.

Never said that, liar. I don’t need a Judge or jury to watch a clip of him in possession, knowingly and intentionally, of a banned magazine. The OAG letter posted at that “blog” outlines exactly how they broke the law, how they knew it was against the law, and how they chose to break the law, and ultimately, how they chose to not prosecute them breaking this important law.

EPWJ – the first 4 words are demonstrably untrue. Everything after except is gibberish. What does “except maybe those who thought one was” even mean? Is this one of your imaginary scenarios where Gregory did not break the law, but those that note he did may have?

A law can be violated without criminal intent, so that law should be ignored if no criminal intent was, well, intended?

Does that mean I will not prosecuted for not paying my fair share of taxes because I trusted my brother-in-law to prepare my tax returns correctly even if he did not? Even if I certainly intended to pay my taxes legally?

Now, suppose I’m a big shot news spewer. I trusted my producer to provide me with an gun part to use to ridicule someone I disagree with. I trusted my news producer to make sure I did not break the law. But I did without intent.

EPJW, since you obviously don’t follow links, the following was published on the Washington Times website. Please read this in it’s entirety, then defend your statements about how this law isn’t actually enforced against others or that when it is enforced, it is against people who “actually broke the law”.

I particularly want to hear you defend this statement you made earlier.

But saying that prosecutors go out of their way to unfairly prosecute or not prosecute the laws – we simple have no credible information on that

Article follows.

The Washington Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) inquiry into whether NBC’s David Gregory broke the law by possessing a 30-round “high-capacity” magazine on national TV has been ongoing for three weeks. Meanwhile, U.S. Army veteran James Brinkley is still grappling with the fallout from his arrest last year on the same charge.

Mr. Brinkley’s story is just one example of at least 105 individuals who, unlike Mr. Gregory, were arrested in 2012 for having a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

On Sept. 8, Mr. Brinkley says he intended to drop his wife and young children at the White House for a tour and then head to a shooting range to practice for the U.S. Marshals Service test. Just like Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley called MPD in advance for guidance on how he could do this legally. Mr. Brinkley was told that the gun had to be unloaded and locked in the trunk, and he couldn’t park the car and walk around.

Unlike Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley followed the police orders by placing his Glock 22 in a box with a big padlock in the trunk of his Dodge Charger. The two ordinary, 15-round magazines were not in the gun, and he did not have any ammunition with him.

As he was dropping off his family at 11 a.m. on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue, Mr. Brinkley stopped to ask a Secret Service officer whether his wife could take the baby’s car seat into the White House. The officer saw Mr. Brinkley had an empty holster, which kicked off a traffic stop that ended in a search of the Charger’s trunk. Mr. Brinkley was booked on two counts of “high capacity” magazine possession (these are ordinary magazines nearly everywhere else in the country) and one count of possessing an unregistered gun.

Despite the evidence Mr. Brinkley had been legally transporting the gun, his attorney Richard Gardiner said the D.C. Office of the Attorney General “wouldn’t drop it.” This is the same office now showing apparent reluctance to charge Mr. Gregory.

Mr. Brinkley refused to take a plea bargain and admit guilt, so the matter went to trial Dec. 4. The judge sided with Mr. Brinkley, saying he had met the burden of proof that he was legally transporting. Mr. Brinkley was found not guilty on all firearms-related charges, including for the “high-capacity” magazines, and he was left with a $50 traffic ticket.

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told The Washington Times, “We feel it was a valid arrest, and the appropriate charges were brought.” Moments later, a spokesman for the D.C. attorney general’s office, Ted Gest, called and provided the exact same quote. Mr. Gest added that, despite Mr. Brinkley’s acquittal, the ruling “doesn’t mean the judge is right, and we’re wrong.”

Mr. Brinkley believes the “Meet the Press” anchor is receiving special treatment because of his high-profile job. “I’m an average person,” Mr. Brinkley said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times. “There seems to be a law for us and a law for the upper echelon.”

Mr. Brinkley was publicly humiliated, thrown in jail and forced to spend money to defend himself for violating a law that millions of viewers watched the NBC anchor violate. If D.C. is going to have this pointless law, it should at least be enforced fairly.

From the Office of the D.C. Attorney General: “The OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.”

Response from NBC:“We displayed the empty magazine solely for journalistic purposes to help illustrate an important issue for our viewers. We accept the District of Columbia Attorney General’s admonishment, respect his decision and will have no further comment on this matter.”

And the republicans remain silent. Yet they want my vote. Never again. This asshole should have been prosecuted. He was guilty and was set free. Being set up like a m-fer, will get you 2 years in a fed. pen.

again, where are the court records that Gregory was convicted of this crime, the AG is just an atorney for one side, he can make all the propounding statements that he wants, it means nothing, totally and completely nothing. Gregory would have never ever been found guilty and he knows it.

The whole thing is a side show circus that makes conservatives look, well, really bad.

Again, abject BS. This has nothing to do with conservatives. It does show how the Left views the law. Gregory and NBC can knowingly and intentionally break the DC gun laws, on national TV, and the elite can get away with it, based on the media exception to the law, where lowly vets get prosecuted.

1. The law in the District of Columbia makes it illegal to possess a 30 round magazine. It says nothing about intent, and doesn’t qualify the offense by making it be part of committing another crime. It simply states that possession is illegal.

2. Meet the Press films at a studio located in the District of Columbia.

3. David Gregory went on-air at their studio with a 30 round magazine in his possession. He was filmed holding this magazine, and noone has claimed that the magazine was digitally inserted in post-production.

Seems to me that while The Criminal David Gregory has not been convicted in a court of law, the violation of DC’s magazine ban was well documented. Since intent is NOT a factor with this particular law, it doesn’t matter what he “intended” to do with the magazine. It would have been a slam-dunk for the prosecutor to present a case to a judge or jury. Even though his offense if minor in comparison, David Gregory’s treatment here is reminiscent of Byron de la Beckwith. Who knows? Maybe in 30 years some crusading DC prosecutor will revisit this case & apply equal justice under the law?

Or not.

Of course, my opinion of this case is moot, since I am not a lawyer or a member of the media. I’m just some schmo who can read and comprehend the intent of DC’s law.

this is from the D.C. Attorney General Letter Declining to Prosecute David Gregory – “OAG also appreciates that the magazine was immediately returned to the source that NBC understood to be its lawful owner outside of the District and that the magazine in question, with NBC’s assistance, has been surrendered to MPD. OAG also recognizes the cooperation NBC has provided in the investigation of this matter

The exercise of prosecutorial discretion does NOT make the law unenforceable. It has absolutely NO bearing on that. The only way the law could be made unenforceable would be if there were a number of cases that went to trial, and the jury refused to convict through jury nullification. That would then supply a legal basis for other cases in which precedence could be used to undermine the state’s case. Over time the law then would become a dead letter. But a prosecutor refusing to prosecute has no bearing on that at all. This is, at it’s base, an abuse of prosecutorial discretion which must be used narrowly and honestly or it becomes abuse of prosecution.

The D.C. prosecutor’s decision to allow Gregory to skate on this pretty much destroys the credibility of his office.Dollars to donuts, that when the furor over this (such as it is) dies down, the prosecutor will decide not to run for re-election, and will accept a lucrative position elswhere. He really should resign right now, of course, but that would just put the same hot potato in the hands of his successor.

D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan issued a lengthy letter explaining why there will be no prosecution of David Gregory despite a finding that there was a clear violation of the law.

Legal Insurrection discovered that AG Nathan is a family friend of David Gregory and his high-powered attorney wife, Beth Wilkinson. Nathan and Wilkinson participated together in a charity mock trial for the Washington, D.C. Shakespeare Theatre Company in 2011.

IMO he didnt charge Gregory, because 1st no laws were broken and 2nd the clip law would most likely been thrown out.

Your IMO is the opposite of fact-based. The report stated unequivocably that the law was broken. Any sentient being knows the law was broken. It is illegal to possess what David Gregory was in possession of, on national TV. Your “2nd” is a cute way to try to get around your dishonesty in your “1st”

Most of this verbal fencing is pointless, folks, and most of the apparent disagreement comes from definitional shifts and loosely constructed statements of what’s at issue.

There’s no doubt about the relevant facts. They are undisputed. There is no doubt that those facts make out a violation of the relevant statute.

From that, some folks can correctly insist that Gregory broke the law; and other folks can also correctly insist that no court has yet convicted him of that. So if we’re talking about adjudications of guilt under the Rule of Law, everyone agrees that Gregory has not been so adjudicated. But no one can plausibly or in good faith deny that his actions were exactly those prohibited by this criminal law — whether it’s wise or unwise, constitutional or unconstitutional.

This result — Gregory not being prosecuted — was absolutely preordained and ought surprise no one who has even a passing acquaintance with political reality. Note well: This is not a comment on the justness of the result in any respect or either way, only on its practical inevitability.

But I am indeed surprised, and quite pleasantly so, that the public attention (including but not limited to blogospheric attention) on the question has forced the prosecutor to issue this written statement. As I’ve written at my blog, I’d much rather see Gregory prosecuted, and then either see him acquitted, convicted, or re-tried if the jury hung. But short of that, it’s a modest victory that the forced of the political left which got that statute passed are now, through the voice of the prosecutor’s office, forced to acknowledge that whenever their discretion deems it appropriate, by whatever standards they’re using, they’re going to refuse to prosecute crystal-clear and nationally televised violations of that statute.

It’s not the Emperor admitting he’s naked, but it’s definitely an occasion to enjoy his courtiers being forced to blush.

Just another comic opera, like the tussels of Chicago and IL pols with the courts over the validity and expanse of their gun laws.
You just have to wonder what they all do not understand about “shall not be infringed”.
But then, there’s always the clown who figures that “Congress shall make no law” doesn’t apply to him because.

So I guess all those times that one time I was tooling down the interstate to Urbana and saw the speed limit sign that said 65 and when I looked down at my speedometer I saw it hovering on 9O, I was not breaking the law. Because, you know, the cop patrolling that stretch already had somebody else pulled over and so no ticket was written and no judge ever saw my case. Guilty as sin!! Free as a bird! (Gee that sounds kind of familiar.)

There is truly only so much that a sane person reading these comments can tolerate from you, Eric.

You want Gregory prosecuted because what has happened to people who actually “broke” the law

Gregory didnt, in fact he was doing probably a PSA on/for/in support of the law and make the DC law nationwide.

Yes, that is exactly what he was doing; now explain exactly how that changes the fact that he broke that very law that he was promoting. The fact that he was promoting this law, and urging its expansion, is precisely why he must be prosecuted for breaking it.

last i checked, the DA passed on prosecuting him. why on earth would you abuse a public office to indict someone who showed something to an audience to warn them that they are illegal?

Huh? How about someone who smoked a joint on TV to warn people that it was illegal? Or someone who “polluted” a so-called “wetland” to warn people that it was illegal? He committed a crime, in public, the very crime whose extension nationwide he was advocating, so what possible defense could he make?

David Gregory went out of his way to break this law, almost as though he wanted to flaunt his special above-the-law status.

He did not need to actually bring the magazine into the jurisdiction and wave it around to ‘warn people it was illegal’. He could have had an image displayed on screen much more easily.

And he wasn’t ‘warning people’. He was waving it around and demanding to know why anyone would ‘need’ such an item. It was a prop for his confrontation theater… this was not a public service announcement.

There is no doubt he broke this law. There is no doubt that if any of us commoners did what he did, the DC AG would be seeking a hefty prison sentence. We know this because they do this all the time to commoners who break this law without even knowing about it, or even while lawfully transporting locked up firearms.

Back when Clinton’s defenders were claiming that nobody was ever prosecuted for perjury about sex in a civil case, the NY Times published the names and photos of eight people who were at that moment serving federal time for doing just that. My position was that if Clinton wanted to maintain that such an exception to the perjury law exists, or ought to exist, or should be treated as existing, then the first thing he needed to do was pardon those eight people, and issue instructions to all US Attorneys not to prosecute any more such cases. So long as he personally was keeping eight people under lock and key for having done exactly what he did there was no defense possible.

If Mr Gregory had waved the magazine in defiance, in protest against the law, then there would be first amendment grounds for not prosecuting him. But he wasn’t doing that; on the contrary he was advocating that anyone else who did what he was doing ought to be charged with a crime; so there’s no possible reason not to charge him.

All I asked is where’s the trial transcripts, when did prosecutors become judges and the jury

What have trial transcripts, or prosecutors, got to do with whether a crime has been committed? For that matter, what have judges or juries got to do with it? Tell me, did Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, commit murder, or not? After all, he was never charged, let alone tried or convicted. So does that mean the killings he did were not crimes?

All I asked is where’s the trial transcripts, when did prosecutors become judges and the jury

That is not all you asked, and even if it was, it does not negate the fact that Gregory knowingly, flagrantly, and intentionally flouted the law on national TV. The fact that he broke the law is beyond dispute.

Nor will you. You know there is no trial transcript, because the DCOAG chose to not prosecute the clear and flagrant violation of their important law, one they knew in advance they would be breaking. Invincible ignorance combined with your level of dishonesty always comes off as a bit cray cray.

If the EPWJ response to the non-prosecution of unindicted gun-criminal David Gregory is typical of the reaction we can expect from the rest of the Left, then the effort to ban magazines at the federal level is well and truly dead.

A very open and simple request, seems to generate alot of name calling, unattributed motives, and attack upon my character, but I still fail to see where anything has been shown that Gregory “broke” a law which cannot be defended

EPWJ – repeating the same mendoucheous crap doesn’t make it less mendoucheous. You are arguing with your own fevered imagination. We dont need a judge or a jury to see he broke the law. He knew he was breaking the law, and chose to. Whether or no it is constitutional is a completely different question.

“To say someone violated a law is not to say that he was convicted. Your conflation of the two was always fraudulent.”

SPQR – But under EPWJ logic, only your opinion that Gregory committed a crime or that of the D.C. AG requires a trial transcript to back it up, while EPWJ’s opinion that Gregory did not commit a crime because he was not charged through an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and that the underlying law in unconstitutional requires no support whatsoever.

I’m going to keep repeating it untilyou realize that, well, Gregory didnt committ a crime, hence a lawyer – albeit a prosecutor – appointed by the same idiot party lawmakers that made said stupid law – finally had to admit it wasnt a real law – If the liberal prosecutor went to trial it would be thrown out on appeal

Thats my point, always was my point, sorry you couldnt see it but you cant prosecute and sent someone to jail on a law that is clearly unconstitutional

hence a lawyer – albeit a prosecutor – appointed by the same idiot party lawmakers that made said stupid law – finally had to admit it wasnt a real law

Now you’re just outright lying. He didn’t admit anything of the kind; on the contrary, he insisted in his letter that it is a real law, and that he will continue prosecuting people for it – other people, that is, the little people.

The very fact that people here are willing to jail people over differences of opinion – completely and totally missed the point that everything Pat, Andrew, and Arron have gone through these last few months

He has enforced it, hundreds of times, and he will go on enforcing it. How is that an admission that it’s not a real law?

If you want to convince me Gregory is a criminal – show me where he was convicted of a crime

Answer the f–ing question: Did Jack the Ripper a criminal? Yes or no. Do not evade the question. Do you really imagine, in your twisted excuse for a mind, that a crime has not happened until someone is convicted of it?

The Meckler and Brinkley prosecutions, because they served no useful purpose, stick in my craw, after all they only spent years fighting for their country, nothing Mr. Nathan would understand apparently,

The DC AG admits that Gregory intentionally broke an important law, and they selected to not prosecute.

No, the DC Ag said that NBC, the corporation, “has now acknowledged that its interpretation of the information it received was incorrect” and that that any uncertainty on the part of its employees was not justified.

It might not have been his idea, of course, and lots of people at NBC must have handled the magazine once it crossed the border of the District of Columbia, and David Gregory surely relied on legal advice. (although when the lawyer makes a mistake about something being legal, most of the time it’s the client who gets prosecued)

BTW, the point about Jack the Ripper was that Jack the Ripper – whoever he was – was never prosecuted.

It looks like the question of David Gregory in particular was addressed.

The reason given for not prosecuting is that it wouldn’t promote public safety (if that’s a criterion I think some laws might be nullified altogether, and some laws don’t have that purpose even theoretically) or serve the best interests of the people of the District (which is true, but do they always limit themselves that way?)

“The very fact that people here are willing to jail people over differences of opinion – completely and totally missed the point that everything Pat, Andrew, and Arron have gone through these last few months”

EPWJ – Sad that you believe blog commenters have the ability to put people in jail and that jailing over difference of opinion is what is at issue here.

Now Aaron has been accusing BK of crimes against him for a year, which is protected speech, even though BK has not been finally judicially adjudicated guilty of crimes against Aaron. Have you demanded transcripts from Aaron to support his claims against BK or is that different than the opinions about Gregory here?

The DC AG just lost a case where large capacity clips were in a car loaded with a gun, and the Judge sided with Brinkley, basically in a judgement like that – you are being told, unless a CRIME has been committed – dont bother the oourts again with this nonsense.

he clip capacity was the news of the day, its in his job description most likely, since NBC was researching legal opinions, I would say that Gregory doesnt run or control NBC and is just another employee

The DC AG just lost a case where large capacity clips were in a car loaded with a gun,

Liar.

and the Judge sided with Brinkley, basically in a judgement like that – you are being told, unless a CRIME has been committed – dont bother the oourts again with this nonsense.

Bulldust. You are telling a deliberate lie. Brinkley was finally acquitted because he was legally transporting his weapon through DC; had he lived there, or been headed to or from somewhere there, he would have had no defense, and would have been convicted.

he clip capacity was the news of the day, its in his job description most likely, since NBC was researching legal opinions, I would say that Gregory doesnt run or control NBC and is just another employee

What has any of that got to do with anything? If your job description includes a criminal act, do you imagine that’s a defense?!

There is no requirement that there be a victim for this law to be violated. Mere possession.

he clip capacity was the news of the day, its in his job description most likely, since NBC was researching legal opinions, I would say that Gregory doesnt run or control NBC and is just another employee

If cocaine was the news of the day, you would allow him to v in possession of a kilo to demonstrate a point?

Unlike Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley followed the police orders by placing his Glock 22 in a box with a big padlock in the trunk of his Dodge Charger. The two ordinary, 15-round magazines were not in the gun, and he did not have any ammunition with him.

The account I read was one of the clips were loaded, but even if they were unloaded the Judge isnt going to convict people for having unloaded clips JD

The judge sided with Mr. Brinkley, saying he had met the burden of proof that he was legally transporting. Mr. Brinkley was found not guilty on all firearms-related charges, including for the “high-capacity” magazines, and he was left with a $50 traffic ticket.

This is the same rhetorical tactic that EPWJ the POS troll has practiced for years. Repetition of the same faux “question” that had been responded to over and over. All to cover that he’s been shown to be an idiot and a fabricator.